A Leadless Intracardiac Transcatheter Pacing System

Dwight Reynolds(Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College), Gábor Zoltán Duray(Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University), Razali Omar(National Heart Institute), Kyoko Soejima(Kyorin University Hospital), Petr Neužil(Na Homolce Hospital), Shu Zhang(Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College), Calambur Narasimhan(CARE Hospitals), Clemens Steinwender(Johannes Kepler University of Linz), Josép Brugada(Hospital Universitari de Vic), Michael S. Lloyd(Emory University Hospital), Paul R. Roberts(University of Southampton), Venkata Sagi, John D. Hummel(The Ohio State University), Maria Grazia Bongiorni(Ospedale Cisanello), Reinoud E. Knops(Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam), Christopher R. Ellis(Vanderbilt University Medical Center), Charles C. Gornick(Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation), Matthew A. Bernabei(Lancaster General Hospital), Verla Laager(Medtronic (United States)), Kurt Stromberg(Medtronic (United States)), Eric R. Williams(Medtronic (United States)), J. Harrison Hudnall(Medtronic (United States)), Philippe Ritter(Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute)
New England Journal of Medicine
November 9, 2015
Cited by 907Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system has been designed to avoid the need for a pacemaker pocket and transvenous lead. METHODS: In a prospective multicenter study without controls, a transcatheter pacemaker was implanted in patients who had guideline-based indications for ventricular pacing. The analysis of the primary end points began when 300 patients reached 6 months of follow-up. The primary safety end point was freedom from system-related or procedure-related major complications. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with low and stable pacing capture thresholds at 6 months (≤2.0 V at a pulse width of 0.24 msec and an increase of ≤1.5 V from the time of implantation). The safety and efficacy end points were evaluated against performance goals (based on historical data) of 83% and 80%, respectively. We also performed a post hoc analysis in which the rates of major complications were compared with those in a control cohort of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers from six previously published studies. RESULTS: The device was successfully implanted in 719 of 725 patients (99.2%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary safety end point was 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.9 to 97.3; P<0.001 for the comparison with the safety performance goal of 83%); there were 28 major complications in 25 of 725 patients, and no dislodgements. The rate of the primary efficacy end point was 98.3% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.5; P<0.001 for the comparison with the efficacy performance goal of 80%) among 292 of 297 patients with paired 6-month data. Although there were 28 major complications in 25 patients, patients with transcatheter pacemakers had significantly fewer major complications than did the control patients (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.75; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this historical comparison study, the transcatheter pacemaker met the prespecified safety and efficacy goals; it had a safety profile similar to that of a transvenous system while providing low and stable pacing thresholds. (Funded by Medtronic; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02004873.).


Related Papers